Mt.Gox Legalhttps://www.mtgoxlegal.com
A group for Mt. Gox Bitcoin creditorsSun, 28 Jan 2018 14:00:51 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.3https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/mtgoxlegal_icon.pngMt.Gox Legalhttps://www.mtgoxlegal.com
3232Update 26-Jan-18https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/2018/01/26/update-26-jan-18/
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:23:02 +0000https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/?p=355Our lawyer is soliciting expert opinions from a scholar and judge to present to the examiner who is assessing if CR can be approved. The experts will hopefully give an opinion on how the two challenges mentioned in the last blog can be approached, in a way that legally allows for CR. The aim is to enable the examiner to recommend CR to the court.

Our legal team are meeting with the examiner or the 1st of Feb, to discuss those expert opinions so far, and make sure the work is on the right lines. The deadline for the examiner to report to the court is at the end of Feb so there is time to review and adapt the work.

If CR is accepted, the nature of how it is done will likely hinge on how these experts recommend navigating the Bankruptcy and CR statutes. There’s been much discussion on how the assets of Mt Gox should be shared out, but in all likelihood we as creditors will not get to pick what we want. Instead the law will dictate what is possible and we will be asked to choose if we agree to it or want to stick to bankruptcy.

If CR is approved, creditor voting is not likely to happen in time for the next creditors meeting in March according to our lawyer. My understanding is that creditors will vote on the CR plan not on the approval of CR. That plan will flow from the legal restrictions suggested by the expert opinions which allow CR to be approved. It seems likely the trustee will be responsible for putting the plan together. It may be that if the court decides that the plan is unarguably in the interests of creditors, we may not need to vote on it. There’s ambiguity around this. I think that’s because it will also depend on how the expert opinions propose to navigate the statutes. Either way it will become clearer as things progress.

]]>Getting CR approved 29/12/17https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/2017/12/29/getting-cr-approved-29-12-17/
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:15:43 +0000https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/?p=321The court-appointed Examiner will rule on recommending CR to the court at the end of Feb.

There is one sticking point our lawyer has highlighted:

CR requires all creditors (fiat and BTC) to be treated equally, so the surplus must be shared out in a way that treats all creditors the same. But doing so would mean fiat creditors like BTC creditors, only get ~23% of their assets back, instead of 100% they would get from bankruptcy. This is unfair and in contradiction with another CR requirement that all creditors (fiat and BTC) benefit, or at least are not disadvantaged by CR. Clearly fiat creditors would be disadvantaged by this.

It’s an impasse that our lawyers are now preparing a case to find a way around. So that distribution is equal, and no one is disadvantaged.

[Edit: there’s a second issue which the lawyers have raised and is important to share too. Bankruptcy law states its outcome should reach a “binding” settlement. An interpretation of this means that even if we move to CR we’d have to be bound the maximum payout dictated under bankruptcy. To challenge this our lawyers need to bring in former judge and other legal experts form the Civil Rehabilitation team within the same company.]

To do this they will need to set legal precedents, and our lawyer believes it’s necessary to hire a number of legal scholars to provide opinions to sway the Examiner and allow them to feel comfortable setting those precendents. This is expensive. And has to be done quickly.

That’s why were are opening another funding round. The more money we can raise the more scholars opinions we can afford, and the more chance we have of swaying the scholars.

There is hope, my sense is we’ll be pushing at an unlocked door, but it won’t open if we don’t push.

We need to raise another ~$100,000 in legal fees. I’m asking members who have already paid, to make a voluntary donation with a guide of $2 (~£1.50) per Bitcoin of your claim, or whatever you can afford it. We need to average about $120 per person in the group, and some won’t be in a position to contribute, so if you can contribute more, then please do so.

You can donate any amount you like here:

£

I’m also asking people who are not members of the group to consider joining at this point by contributing $100. CR could potentially benefit those who have not had an approved claim. It could potentially benefit those with fiat claims. While I can’t guarantee that outcome, just as I can’t guarantee the success of CR, I’d ask those people to contribute too and join the group.

You can do so here:

]]>Civil Rehabilitation update 16/12/17https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/2017/12/16/civil-rehabilitation-update-16-12-17/
Sat, 16 Dec 2017 09:10:59 +0000https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/?p=296DISCLAIMER: This blog entry has been prepared for general information purposes only to permit you to learn about MtGox Bankruptcy. The information presented is not legal advice, is not to be acted on as such, may not be current and is subject to change without notice. Communication on this website does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship.

Given the legal advice we’ve been given, I believe CR is our only shot at getting a fair distribution. We’ve been advised that the Bankruptcy Act is too comprehensively written to challenge – there is no wiggle room. And also that trying to sue Mark afterwards is problematic. Even if we could prove cause, it’s not easy to assign a value to his blame (Can we prove that opportunity cost due to the delay to distribution of assets is his fault given he had no control on the timescale? – that’s by no means a given.) – No need to argue with me on this, it’s Japanese judge you’d have to argue with.

So we are proceeding with CR. Another creditor’s lawyer (Nishimura & Asahi) has filed an application for CR, (see www.mtgox-creditors.com) and our lawyer is working with him. I’ve been told who N&A’s clients are. They are BTC creditors who were happy to share their names, but their lawyer has asked that they be removed from this blog.

I’ve spoken with Dan Kelman who is one of them, and he’s been very open and cooperative and we are both keen to work together.

The court has appointed an Examiner, to look at the application. They have to be satisfied that CR can be carried out securely, and within the law. This is not at all trivial to show this.

Both N&A and Sekido have ideas on how proving this can be achieved. On some things they agree, on others they are taking different approaches. Either way both have the ear of the Examiner, and it doesn’t matter who is right, as long as a solution the Examiner is happy with emerges.

Kraken have agreed to help us by becoming the sponsor for a CR plan. They would handle the logistics of distribution. This subject to them being able to meet the demands of being a sponsor. I have also reached out to other exchanges.

There is, to my understanding, a liability issue which needs to be addressed by the Examiner too. If CR is granted by the court, the legal entity created for distributing funds will be immune from liabilities that predate it’s existence. So no one can sue it for things Mt Gox did or didn’t do. But that means anyone with a grievance that hasn’t been fully settled yet could sue the Trustee for allowing CR to start. (This is a rough description of a more nuanced reality, but it’s close enough.) As a result the Trustee will oppose CR in order to force a court to make the final decision, and remove his liability. How forcefully he does this is anyone’s guess.

Sekido says that the Coinlab case doesn’t have to be settled before CR can be started.

Legally CR requires that all claims will have to be reassessed. So people that didn’t file claims in time will have an opportunity to be accepted. The hope from the lawyers is that the claims assessed so far can be re-approved automatically, and a window can be left open for creditors that were left out for them to file again. In terms of claim share dilution for approved claimants, this will actually be relatively small as most of those who didn’t file claims have small claims. In terms of timescale this will add a delay.

In terms of timescale, there is no deadline yet, but the negotiations with the examiner might go on til February. Who knows. If the examiner rejects the filing, it will be unlikely the court will look at this again and the trustee will proceed with Bankruptcy distribution.

]]>The legal advice – Civil Rehabilitation.https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/2017/11/29/the-legal-advice-civil-rehabilitation/
Wed, 29 Nov 2017 02:49:59 +0000https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/?p=262The group has voted by a large margin to share the legal advice we have received.

Sekido has provided the following advice. Below it are notes from the phone conversation I had with him:

November 21, 2017
Dear Bitcoin Creditors:
Mori Hamada & Matsumoto
Mugi Sekido
Dai Katagiri
Naoki Shiraiwa
PROPOSAL REGARDING BANKRUPTCY CASE CONCERNING MTGOX CO., LTD.
We hereby propose the matter set forth below. Please provide us with your response to this letter as
to whether you, the Bitcoin creditors, agree with our proposal and wish to retain us for the next steps
in this matter.

1. Transfer to a Civil Rehabilitation Proceeding
As previously explained, in our view, it is very difficult under Japanese law to avoid application of
the statute, being Article 103 of the Bankruptcy Act, in the current bankruptcy proceedings for
MTGOX. To overcome the statute, we should utilize another legal proceeding, and we think that
there are two options; (1) transferring the bankruptcy proceeding to the civil rehabilitation
proceeding and/or (2) filing a claim against the bankruptcy trustee of TIBANNE Co., Ltd.
(“TIBANNE”) and/or MR. Robert Marie Mark Karpeles (“Karpeles”).

Since a shareholder of MTGOX may receive the residual property of MTGOX, the Bitcoin creditors
might consider receiving such capital gains from TIBANNE and/or Karpeles, who directly or
indirectly own the shares of MTGOX. However, we believe that it will take a very long time for
TIBANNE and/or Karpeles to receive residual property from MTGOX. Additionally, it would be
difficult for the Bitcoin Creditors to prove that these lost capital gains are the damages that they
incurred under Japanese tort law. Therefore, we think so far that a transfer of the bankruptcy
proceeding to a civil rehabilitation proceeding would be the best option for the Bitcoin creditors,
even though it is not commonly used in these situations.

In order to transfer the bankruptcy proceeding to a civil rehabilitation proceeding, we will need to
explain to the bankruptcy trustee, Mr. Kobayashi, and the court that we can realize the rehabilitation
of MTGOX’s business through a business transfer agreement between a sponsor and MTGOX, and
also that the civil rehabilitation proceeding will conform to the common interests of creditors.
Essentially, a sponsor will need to purchase MTGOX’s business at fair market value, though this is a
matter for negotiation with Mr. Kobayashi and the court. In general, a sponsor does not have to pay
anything to the shareholder of MTGOX.

To realize such a business transfer, we need to develop a viable plan which is acceptable both to a
sponsor whose focus is on business rationality, and to Mr. Kobayashi and the court whose focuses
are on consistency with the Japanese law. We plan to discuss with potential sponsors suggested by
the Bitcoin creditors, to develop a plan for such a business transfer for rehabilitation of MTGOX’s
business, and to present the plan to Mr. Kobayashi and the court. Extensive discussion will be
necessary both with the sponsors and Mr. Kobayashi and the court, as the transfer from a bankruptcy
proceeding to a civil rehabilitation proceeding is unusual, and it is likely to be an arduous process to
reach an agreement on such a plan amongst all of the sponsor, Mr. Kobayashi and the court. We
will engage in such discussion with the belief that in the light of reasonableness, the increased value
of Bitcoins should not be distributed to Karpeles, the ultimate shareholder of MTGOX, but should
instead be distributed to the Bitcoin creditors. We also will seek input from others who are likely to
give us productive insights for such a plan.

2. Fee Arrangement
We do not think that the success fee arrangement would be suitable to our plan above, because the
value of the success will be distributed to not only those Bitcoin creditors who agree to pay the
success fee, but also to those Bitcoin creditors who do not agree to such payment. We do not think
that such an arrangement would be fair or acceptable. We therefore propose a fee arrangement that
would be calculated on an hourly-charge basis. For the time being, we will charge the Bitcoin
creditors for our legal services, but we understand that their budget is limited. We will aim at
subsequently receiving our fees from a potential sponsor. However, please note that in this scenario,
we will not be able to provide legal services on an item where interests of the Bitcoin creditors and
the sponsor conflict, and we will not be able to work on the conditions of the business transfer which
may affect the distribution rate to the Bitcoin creditors pursuant to the civil rehabilitation plan. We,
however, think that the accomplishment of the business transfer itself is a common interest for the
Bitcoin creditors and the sponsor, and we will be able to work towards achieving this
accomplishment without any conflict of interest issues.

The following are my notes from a phone conversation I’ve had with the legal team since receiving this to clarify some points:

DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING IS MY INTERPRETATION OF THE CONVERSATION. IT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND SHOULD NOT BE ACTED ON AS SUCH.

Time frame: By next creditors meeting we should have an agreement with the trustee over CR, and possibly be ready to vote on CR plan.
Note that if the trustee wants to close the bankruptcy (and distribute according to the Bankruptcy rules) he can only do that by calling a creditors meeting first. So as long as he doesn’t do that we know we have time to get this plan enacted.

Chronology of vote: Creditors vote on the CR sponsor and plan right at the end of the process. So we will be voting on the sponsor and on the way they intend to calculate distribution. We’ll be involved in that discussion as the plan is formed.

Fee: A success fee can only be paid on recovery. Because CR will mean money flowing to creditors is not considered a recovery under Japanese law he can’t charge a success fee. This also means he cannot levy a cap as we had agreed. As such he has no option but to charge his hourly rate. The time involved is hard to predict, but he will work in a way that is efficient. It will exceed $20k, maybe $100k? He cannot say for sure.

Mark’s valuation method: Sekido believes it can be a lot cheaper than this. The valuation does not need to be pegged at a price that covers the value of assets. It is not to cover debts (as Mark suggested) either. The value is decided by the trustee. He decides based on what is in the creditors best interests. So equally important as the value of the purchase price, he is looking at the rehabilitation plan. Potentially if a sponsor offers a small/nominal fee, but has a plan that sees a high return for creditors, the trustee can accept it. The plan is as much a part of the negotiation as the offer is.

The “Purchase” price paid by the sponsor does not go to shareholders, it goes to creditors. Shareholders have no say in the valuation. Shareholders have no control in the company after. Shareholders receive no benefit. The fee basically is added to the assets the sponsor “purchases”, but he’s only allowed to purchase it because he’s agreed a plan with the trustee as to how those assets will be used. [My analogy, It’s like buying a wallet, but the money you pay for the wallet goes in to the wallet, so it doesn’t really matter how much you pay, as long as you look after the wallet]. The trustee then watches over the sponsors activities to make sure he’s sticking to the plan. Again this helps explain why the valuation is very flexible, because it’s paid to the creditors, not the shareholders.

From the sponsors perspective, the plan could include a fee equal to their purchase price. And a fee to cover their costs.

The most important thing for getting it approved is not the valuation, but that the assets go to creditors so the overall plan has to be in the creditors best interests. This is what will make the sponsor’s offer attractive to the trustee and the court, so they can accept it.

—

My reaction: This is actually a really promising plan now that I understand it better. Only down side is we have to fund the legal costs for the sponsor upfront. But that will probably be cheaper in the long run, if we are successful. It may well mean a further round of fundraising. I know many have offered to make larger donations. There may come a time when we have to ask for those kind offers. It would be good if we can protect smaller creditors from the disproportionate burden of flat fee donations.

We are thinking about how we do that and are making a plan as a group. My hope is that we can create a space on the forum for all creditors to join the discussion, and ask for voluntary donations to raise the fees for the lawyer.

]]>Our partial legal advice so far – NOT A FORMAL LEGAL OPINIONhttps://www.mtgoxlegal.com/2017/11/09/our-partial-legal-advice-so-far-not-a-formal-legal-opinion/
Thu, 09 Nov 2017 10:22:23 +0000https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/?p=246DISCLAIMER: Our lawyer has reported back asking for more time (about 2 more weeks) to investigate options further. As such he hasn’t presented a formal legal opinion to us yet. I’m very happy to be able to share this information, (a large majority of the creditors in the group that paid for this advice, who voted wanted this to be shared) but I stress IT IS NOT COMPLETE, NOT FINAL AND SO SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

The information shared here are for general information purposes only to permit you to learn about MtGox Bankruptcy. The information presented is not legal advice, is not to be acted on as such, may not be current and is subject to change without notice. Communication on this website does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship.

This was the informal correspondence from our Lawyer.

Dear Mr. Andy Pag,

The key problem in this case is a Japanese statute, Article 103 of the Bankruptcy Act, which provides that valuation of claims needs to be as of the time of the commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding. In our view, it is very difficult to overcome the statute under the current bankruptcy proceedings because the statutes are controlling under the Japanese law system.

We think that we need to use another proceeding to overcome the statute, which is set for bankruptcy proceedings. We are currently considering a transfer of the bankruptcy proceeding to a civil rehabilitation proceeding. It is not usual, but in our current view, it seems attractive. We face various legal issues in this regard, and needs more time for our analysis. We will update you with more detail in two weeks. We would appreciate your understanding that steady steps are needed to overcome the challenging problem in this case.

Kind regards…

I also made some notes on the phone with him, which I’m not comfortable sharing publicly at this time, as they raise more questions than they answers, and I don’t want to risk spreading confusion.

My feeling is that if the Bankruptcy Act is too prescriptive to allow either the trustee, or a legal petition to the court, to challenge the surplus going to shareholders, but that moving to CR will allow a fairer distribution, then it is something we should start exploring. I intend to do that in the next 2 weeks in anticipation of further developments from the lawyer, fully aware however that the lawyer’s research may take further turns.

The lawyer mentioned the need for a “sponsor” – a legal entity which can be trusted to oversee the process of distribution. For instance a BTC exchange, he intimated. I’ve asked for more clarity on this, but it may not come for a couple of weeks.

From my perspective as a non-legal expert I believe this approach gives the opportunity for some advantages:

All assets go to creditors, none to shareholders.

Legal fees and management fees would be minimal, and not taken upfront. They can be paid at the end of the process from the sponsor, and are effectively shared equally among all creditors, and therefore negligible on individual claims.

We, (ALL creditors), have the opportunity to design a distribution method between fiat and btc claims that we can all agree on in advance, rather than be at the whim of a legal statute’s byproduct. There’s no reason why anyone should lose out compared to the current plan.

A legal entity would then continue to exist longer-term to pursue the stolen coins – backed by ~24,000 newly wealthy creditors.

]]>We have been given partial legal advicehttps://www.mtgoxlegal.com/2017/11/07/we-have-been-given-partial-legal-advice/
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 20:04:03 +0000https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/?p=239We haven’t received the full advice today, but we have been given a briefing with significant hints on where the lawyer thinks we will need to go, legally. The good news is that this will be something that can benefit all creditors. And it may not require any direct commitment to a success fee. We have to wait a further two weeks for the lawyer to do more work on this before he can confirm this plan, and he is ready to act.

As there will be some decisions that need to be made which could affect all creditors, we are looking at creating a voting system which is open to everyone, but to prevent spurious voters I am investigating how we can verify creditors without holding their identity data, while giving them voting rights. If this is feasible, it means we will be able to open the group to all creditors for free.

In the meantime I am re-opening contributions on the same terms as before. We welcome the financial contributions which may be needed for this unconfirmed plan, but as it may not be essential we if $100 is too steep for you, you may choose to wait a few weeks to see if entry becomes free.

]]>Update 4/Nov/17 – Board of Governance Electedhttps://www.mtgoxlegal.com/2017/11/04/update-4nov17-board-of-governance-elected/
Sat, 04 Nov 2017 16:06:51 +0000https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/?p=227This week we have elected a Governance Board to oversee the administration of the group. Their role is to act as a sounding board for me, and to provide advice, as well as acting as a check and balance. They also have the power to replace me if necessary.

Their forum names are yyy, anders and Matt_s. Their full identities and their professional experience is visible on the forum. It includes, bookkeeping, business management, and bankruptcy recovery via litigation. I’m personally really excited to have such a well skilled team to support what we’re doing.

The group has continued to grow slowly and steadily this week. We now have over 400 contributors on the forum, and over 700 in the google group. I have to admit I’ve been neglecting the google group slightly this week, so apologies for that.

Our laywer, Sekido-sensei is due to report back to us on Tuesday, with his legal advice. He may suggest a single course of action, or a choice of action, which will require us to decide what to do. My feeling is that we should try to make any decisions as promptly as possible so forum members should make a plan to check in on Tuesday to see if there’s a vote to be taken.

I’ve been circumspect about if or how the Mtgoxlegal group might change after the advice is shared with us. We might be able to open the group to all-comers free of charge, we might continue on this contribution basis, or we might have to close the group off to any more members. I’ve been purposefully circumspect because while I personally hope we can open it up, the decision will depend on the advice we receive and the decision the group take based on it. The Google Group will continue to be open to all comers, and I promise I will try to be more active (rather than just reactive) on the Google Group in the coming week.

]]>Press Releasehttps://www.mtgoxlegal.com/2017/10/27/press-release/
Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:31:46 +0000https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/?p=179Owner of failed Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange, who lost $500m of customers money, in line for over $700m of their funds, due to legal black-hole.

The owner of the bankrupt Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange, who designed its security system, but didn’t notice repeated thefts over three years leading to losses of almost $500m of customer’s money, is due to be awarded over a $700m windfall, thanks to the recent surge in bitcoin price causing an unprecedented legal black-hole. The plans were revealed by the lawyer managing the bankruptcy last month, and the payout will come at the expense of customers, whose bitcoins were stolen and have been told to expect back just 8% of their lost investment.

The exchange, which was based in Tokyo, shut abruptly in February 2014. It later emerged that only 202,000 of the 850,000 customer’s bitcoins remained. A series of thefts were facilitated by poor security. The CEO of Mt. Gox, Mark Karepeles (32, France) is currently on trial for embezzlement and data manipulation relating to the losses. The remaining bitcoins were put in the care of a court-appointed lawyer, Nobuaki Kobayashi-sensei, to manage the bankruptcy. Since that time Mr Kobayashi has been meticulously assessing a vast number of claims from former customers. Currently 23,857 have been approved.

As is traditional with assets in a Japanese bankruptcy, customers had their bitcoin claims valued in yen, at the market rate of the day the exchange closed. On February 24th, 2014, one bitcoin was worth 50,058JPY (~$480)

Since then, the value of bitcoin has increased more than 12 fold, and Mt Gox is technically no longer insolvent. Mr Kobayashi was expected to pay claims at three times their 2014 valuation. However, at a creditors meeting on the 27th of September 2017 he confirmed that he intends to stick to the 2014 valuation, meaning customers will get back just 8% of the current value of their bitcoins. Mr Kobayashi announced that in this unprecedented case, in which the bankrupt company has become technically solvent, the law states that the surplus funds, which could be over $700m, should be returned to the shareholders. The largest shareholder, Tibanne Co. Ltd, is a company wholly owned by Mr Karpeles who ran Mt Gox, and failed to prevent numerous thefts, including one thief that returned hundreds of times a month and leached away the bulk of the exchange’s bitcoins undetected for over three years. The theft was only discovered because the exchange’s bitcoins ran out.

In a further twist, Mr Karpeles warned customers on social media about the windfall, and stated he didn’t want the money to come to him but was legally powerless to reject it due to his personal bankruptcy proceedings. The posts have since been deleted.

The unprecedented rise in bitcoin’s value this year has highlighted the inflexibility of the arcane Japanese bankruptcy statutes, which sit uncomfortably with its progressive legislation on cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. In March the Japanese government passed laws to recognise bitcoin as a legal method of payment.

Andy Pag (42, United Kingdom) bought bitcoin in 2010 on Mt Gox and was a customer when it shut. Last month he set up MtGoxLegal, a co-operative for Mt Gox customers, and hired legal counsel in a bid to reverse the decision. “We hope we can help the Japanese justice system see beyond the outdated minutiae of the Bankruptcy Act, to the broader principles of justice and honour which the country is famous for.

“By bringing creditors together, it seems more likely the court will listen to us.”

“For many of us, it was a massive shock when the exchange suddenly closed. We’d lost everything. Then, with the price surge this year, we had hope that we could at least recoup something. And now we’re told the court will be asked to give it all to the man who bungled running the exchange. That would be a massively unjust outcome.”

27/October/2017 – for immediate release. v iii

Background and sources

Mtgoxlegal has just under 400 members and is growing. They are early adopters of bitcoin technology having bought bitcoin before 2014. Together their claims represent an estimated 60,000btc, around 7% of all the claims by value. The assets of Mt Gox are enough to honour their creditors claims at a rate of ~23%, but the trustee’s course of action means they are due to only receive 8%, based on current market value.www.mtgoxlegal.com

Mt Gox was run by CEO Mark Karpeles, who is currently on trial in Tokyo for Embezzlement and Data Manipulation.

The Japanese government passed laws in March 2017 to recognise Bitcoin as a legal method of payment, one of the first countries to do so.

We’ve already raised the full amount needed to pay the lawyer to research, and proceed to the next step.

Everyone has already put in ~$100 (actually £85), and rather than close the group when we reached the target for the lawyers fee, we’ve decided to keep it open so other’s can join us.

The money we raised since then will be used to further the group’s aims. We’ve already put some of the surplus towards creating a part-time role for an administrator and voted Andy in to the job. We have volunteer IT teams, Data & Analysis teams, and a bookkeeper. We’ve created a governance board elected by the group to oversee all these activities. We’re also reaching out to support other legal actions that further our aim of fairer distribution.

How are we paying this?

We haven’t had enough demand to create a bitcoin payment system. If you’re ready to pay with BTC please request it at mtgox-creditors@googlegroups.com. But we need 12 people to make it worthwhile and so far only 3 have asked.

If you don’t have a card and are really desperate to pay another way, you can contact the administrator and arrange to contribute by Paypal.

Deadline

Making a donation to join the group is currently our only way to verify people who want to join are Mt Gox Creditors. It’s crude, and it’s a barrier to entry, so it’s not an ideal solution. We’re working on a verification solution. In the near future conditions for entering the group may change.

]]>Accountability update.https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/2017/10/22/accountability-update/
Sun, 22 Oct 2017 20:51:12 +0000https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/?p=147Just over a week ago, I told everyone that for all the psuedo-accountability I was presenting, in the end it just came down to having to trust me.

Well I’m working on changing that this week, so things won’t have to rely on just trust anymore.

Accounting

Already we have a volunteer bookkeeper, yyy. A big thanks to him for volunteering. The IT team (now on with their own email address: support@mtgoxlegal.com) have arranged for the stripe income report to be emailed automatically to YYY every week. I’ll provide him with receipts for outgoings, and an update on paypal income manually. (That’s another reason why I’m trying to avoid Paypal contributions). He’ll provide a monthly update of how the finances are looking and reconcile it with the balance of accounts to make sure it’s all where it should be.

Governance

Next, I want to set up a Governance Board, a bit like a Board of Directors, if I were an MD. They will have the power to hold me to account, question my decisions, and replace me if needed. I can share sensitive information with them when it’s in everybody’s interest that that information is kept temporarily secret. This protects me from being accused of keeping information for my own benefit.

They will also review, and approve me carrying on being paid each month, for the next three months.

Exactly how we will work is open to suggestions from them. Perhaps a weekly skype conference call, and published minutes for the whole group to read. Perhaps they have other suggestions.

When we have a few candidates volunteering here I’ll ask them to give a biog, an outline of their claim size, and suggestions on how they would like to run the Governance board, and then contributors will vote to select 3-5 people. We already have some good candidates, but I urge others to get involved. For instance so far I think the list is all male volunteers, which I think is a weakness.

To some this may seem a little over-complicated. But it’s important for two reasons: firstly to build trust in the decisions we are taking, and secondly so we have authority when I (or whoever is representing us) is negotiating on our behalf to the court, or with other vested interests.